What have you been reading, hearing or TV viewing that has provoked some feelings of comfort or concern about what is happening in the world of medicine, medical care, treatment or science? Ethics is all about doing the right thing. Are you aware of any issues in medicine or biologic science which are being done right, could be improved or in fact represent totally unethical behavior?
Write about them here.. and I will too! ..Maurice (DoktorMo@aol.com)

REMINDER: I AM POSTING A NEW TOPIC ABOUT ONCE A WEEK OR PERHAPS TWICE A WEEK. HOWEVER, IF YOU DON'T FIND A NEW TOPIC POSTED, THERE ARE AS OF MARCH 2013 OVER 900 TOPIC THREADS TO WHICH YOU CAN READ AND WRITE COMMENTS. I WILL BE AWARE OF EACH COMMENTARY AND MAY COME BACK WITH A REPLY.

TO FIND A TOPIC OF INTEREST TO YOU ON THIS BLOG, SIMPLY TYPE IN THE NAME OR WORDS RELATED TO THE TOPIC IN THE FIELD IN THE LEFT HAND SIDE AT TOP OF THE PAGE AND THEN CLICK ON “SEARCH BLOG”. WITH WELL OVER 900 TOPICS, MOST ABOUT GENERAL OR SPECIFIC ETHICAL ISSUES BUT NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO ANY SPECIFIC DATE OR EVENT, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND WHAT YOU WANT. IF YOU DON’T PLEASE WRITE TO ME ON THE FEEDBACK THREAD OR BY E-MAIL DoktorMo@aol.com

IMPORTANT REQUEST TO ALL WHO COMMENT ON THIS BLOG: ALL COMMENTERS WHO WISH TO SIGN ON AS ANONYMOUS NEVERTHELESS PLEASE SIGN OFF AT THE END OF YOUR COMMENTS WITH A CONSISTENT PSEUDONYM NAME OR SOME INITIALS TO HELP MAINTAIN CONTINUITY AND NOT REQUIRE RESPONDERS TO LOOK UP THE DATE AND TIME OF THE POSTING TO DEFINE WHICH ANONYMOUS SAID WHAT. Thanks. ..Maurice

FEEDBACK,FEEDBACK,FEEDBACK! WRITE YOUR FEEDBACK ABOUT THIS BLOG, WHAT IS GOOD, POOR AND CONSTRUCTIVE SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT TO THIS FEEDBACK THREAD

Monday, August 06, 2007

Pro-Life and Favoring the Death Penalty: An Ethical Conflict?

Here is an apparent ethical conflicting view that I have heard. How can a person be "pro-life" and still be in favor of the death penalty? Is the answer simply that "pro-life" means in favor of the life an innocent embryo or fetus and not necessarily for the maintaining of all life, including criminals who are to be executed nor the killing of enemy soldiers or innocent civilians during times of war? If being "pro-life" means something more than protecting the fetus, is that being clearly expressed to society? Or if not, should those who claim to be "pro-life" define their objectives. Or have they and I have missed it. Physicians are involved in this distinction as they are personally and professionally challenged by various people including patients and authorities with issues such abortion, contraception, invitro fertilization, termination of life-supportive measures, participating in death penalty activities and in war and torture. Those of my visitors who consider themselves "pro-life" can you define the extent to which you support the preservation of life. Should the preservation of life only be extended to the embryo and fetus, to the ill or patients in the persistent vegetative state? Is the death penalty, war and torture another matter? ..Maurice.

26 Comments:

Dr. Bernstein, this is one of those issues that have always made me go hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Holding up a sign with my right hand that says "Stop the slaying of the unborn," while holding up a sign in my left hand that says "Kill the murderer," and calling yourself pro-life has always confused me.

But alas, you asked for comments from pro-lifers. I love life, but I'm guess I don't fit into the pro-life category. Maybe we should just kill them all and let God sort them out. (said tongue in cheek)

Maurice - Whether there is actually an "ethical conflict" here depends on how the various slogans get articulated. Although I am personally against executing criminals, I do understand that the difference between guilt and innocence could be viewed as a morally relevant "nuance."

The idea is that punishment (or deterrence, as some believe) by society is different from taking an innocent life for the purpose of another human being. The Judeo-Christian tradition takes the basis from the Noachic law.

My opinion is that the law should only be invoked if the killer is a continuing danger to others. (The jailbreak in Kenedy, Texas a few years ago was a hit to my stance.

LifeEthics.org, since I have never attended a pro-life meeting, do you know if the conflict I brought up in this thread is often discussed? And what are the other conflicting ideologies of the pro-life groups that are also discussed? ..Maurice.

Abraham, with regard to your last question, I think it all has to do with the concept of personhood and the termination of the personhood of that human. Pro-choice folks find no personhood in a fetus before the birth of the child. In contrast, the criminal who is to be executed has had a life and has personhood. I would think that might be a possible explanation to the apparent conflicting views. On the other hand, such a pro-choicer might simply believe that there is no societal benefit to execute a criminal in terms of reducing the incidence of homocide or rape. ..Maurice.

It's pretty simple. My interpretation is that the pro-life position favors protecting the right to arrive safely on the planet. The being in question has not done anything to earn death.

Naturally, the next question becomes "well, what about the mother and her life?". The answer here is also simple...nobody ever guaranteed a right to convenience. It is very inconvenient to be pregnant. However, it is not fatal. A mother, no matter how compromised, will very likely survive pregnancy, whereas a fetus never survives abortion.

The death penalty, OTOH, is something that is earned by the recipient, a consequence for their behavior. I have never met a pro-lifer who believed that anyone should be excuted simply because their mother chose not to care for them.

As a "Pro-life" Republican I have decided that "pro-life" really only means "pro" an unborn zygote/fetus's opportunity to be born. Once born that "right-to-life" no longer applies. Criminal acts (i.e. murder) or association with criminals (i.e. parents in Al Queda) make it morally acceptable to kill a human being.

The expression "right to life" seems to be used either broadly or narrowly, however it is my question as to whether once a person is born as Anonymous from today states the "right to life no longer applies." If it is morally acceptable to kill a murderer then was it therefore acceptable for the murderer to kill the victim since the victim's "right to life no longer applies"? I am confused about this general application of denial of "right to life". ..Maurice.

Someone who is "pro-life" is against the death penalty and a pacifist and possibly anti-abortion (although many people -including doctors and scientists- believe that life begins at birth). The first two are clearly taking a life but whether abortion is murder can never be settled.

Also, there is no such thing as "pro-abortion". I consider myself pro-choice and pro-life. I don't believe that abortion is murder and I believe that a fetus deserves a chance to be born. What I don't believe is that the government has any role in making this decision. Just like I don't believe that the government has any role in deciding if someone deserves to be executed. If a jury of peers decide to kill someone that is their decision and if a woman decides to have an abortion that is her decision. I find is sadly amusing that neo-cons and "family values" charlatans often brag about the amount of criminals they have executed. As a one-term governor of Texas George W Bush signed off on more executions than any other governor in history. As far as I'm concerned that evangelical "family values" neo-con has personally killed more people than I have (none) or ever will.

To maintain continuity of this thread, I request those posting to this thread as "Anonymous", at least identify themselves at the end of the post with a pseudonym name or some initials consistently. I presume, from the distinctly differing views, the two Anonymous from today are different folks. Thanks. ..Maurice.

I myself am pro-life. Not like those who claim to be it. Im against abortion, the death penalty, and violence in any, including war, realistic setting. Violence in movies and video games are fine with me as long as it has nothing to reality.

I was just having this discussion on another board. I am pro-choice. I cant help but wonder why the human race tends to impose their own beliefs on one another. The government should not be aloud to murder anyone under law if abortion should not be in existence. You cannot be pro-life and say you agree with the death penalty, it is a contraindication within itself. I personally feel that abortions should ONLY be legally used for medical reasons. Abusing the procedure can cause more harm to a womans body than good, but that is their choice.

Once we start taking away womens right to choose, I hope we can take away the acts of war, capitol punishment, etc.

Sometimes I wish that we lived still in a day where the English language was still non-existent.

here is a response i had made in another forum about this topic:

"mean if you really want to get technical tying your tubes would be consider premeditated murder as well as men have their procedures. I mean really where do we stop. IF you take away a womans right to choose, there goes a lot more than just abortion.

Abortion will be a touchy subject because everyone will always feel like they are right no matter which position they are standing in.

I will ask you this, god forbid if ever a person put in the position of having to take their child off of life support, would that be considered murder??

See my thing is very simple, nooooooooooooo it is not ok to run and have an abortion as a form BC. TO me that is so wrong! But if it comes down to being pregnant and finding out the baby wont make it pass your 10 wk, your 20 wk, and you decide to have a the procedure done then i dont see nothing wrong with that. if you are pregnant and you find out that the odds of your life ending are far greater when giving birth, this is a decision for you to make and if you choose to not put your life at risk i would not hold it against you... do you see where i am going with this?

Medical in my book is okStupidity not ok in my book(medical includes mental health)"

I just had this discussion with a friend yesterday and explained it this way: I am pro-life and that is based on the value of human life being given by our Creator. I want to protect the life of the unborn at all costs, as I would any other innocent human being whose life was being endangered by someone who does not hold to the value system that life is precious and needs to be protected. A murderer has proven that they do not value human life and precious, to the point that they have unjustly taken that life from one or more people. A person like Ted Bundy proved that he did not value human life and the right of others to live. Within the realm of society and government, if we truly value life, those that don't and take another's life, have forsaken their right to live. I hear people say that it is hypocritical to say you are pro-life and Pro-capital punishment...I would argue that it is hypocritical to be pro-life and NOT support capital punishment.

In being against abortion, I am supporting the right of an innocent person to live. In being supportive of capital punishment, I am continuing to hold that value of innocent human life, by saying if you take the life of someone there is an ultimate price to pay. Those that argue against capital punishment are placing a higher value of life on the murderer rather then the one whose life they took!

jpobrien, but just to extend your argument, wouldn't you include the individual who performs an abortion as one who should also suffer capital punishment? Or do you find that the life of a fetus and the life of a person already born have sufficiently different value that one dictating punishment from a moral point of view might also accept different punishments? ..Maurice.

Saying that any person or society can judge whether a person is deserving of death or not is playing the role of God. The Bible is very clear that the only one that is able to judge is God. On a very basic level, most of us know the line "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone..." This passage goes on to explain that the judgments of man are not equal to the judgments of God.

You cannot justify the sin of killing another human being by the sinful acts that they have committed. There are no "justified" killing, ever, in the Christian faith. For those that argue this please grab your new testaments and read the whole thing, not just the verse that supports your views. I welcome your opinion on this.

Daniel great point! Probably the best I have heard it. Life is a gift granted to us by God. Who are we to decide who is or is not worthy of God's gift? I think that the most striking example would be the punishment God saved for Cain after the murder of Abel. God did not take the life of Cain, but forced him to live his life as "a restless wanderer on the earth." This story is one of the defining stories in the Bible and speaks volumes about this issue. JoshG

Well, for me pro-life is about right to life, because a baby is defenseless and mature, conscientious adults have the responsibility to defend the defenseless. (Hence, we have created fire and police departments.) I'm also pro-capital punishment and I don't really believe there's some irony or conflict of beliefs.

Here's why: last time I heard of any mass murderer, they weren't deaf, nor illiterate, nor lacking in intelligence. They didn't do it on accident. They know when they live in a certain state or country the risks they take for their actions. A drunk driver who kills a family of 6, goes to jail for a very long time, and very well-deservedly. How does a serial rapist or murderer not deserve the natural, previously stated consequences of their actions?

Also, it should be very well recognized that capital punishment is not a federal law, but state law. Abortion, on the other hand, is a federal law, taking away the state's rights, according to the U.S Constitution and Bill of Rights, to choose for their constituents the correct way to apply the concept of right to life.

Ethical conflict? For me, not in the slightest. On the other hand, the people that are okay with murdering babies through abortion and allowing murderers that destroy the lives of the people and the loved ones around them to live.... that's a puzzler for me.

It's simple. Pro-life is meant for the helpless lives of unborn children, that by no fault of their own, are being killed. You can support pro-life while still being pro-capital punishment. These people have committed horrific crimes and taken innocent people's lives. That is like comparing slavery to prison. The slaves are being help captive through no fault of their own, while prisoners are being punished for doing something they know was wrong.

First, I'd like simply to comment on the thoughtfulness of many of the previous comments. Three cheers for thoughtfulness!

A few questions for all-of-the-above to ponder...

1) Aren't we anthropomorphizing a bit when a two-celled embryo is referred to as "a person"? It's not a person, it's an embryo. "Potential person"? Maybe. But then, as lakotabunnygrl aluded to, wouldn't it be "murder" for a woman to tie her tubes or even for a man to masturbate, depriving some "potential personhood"?

2) The current (mid-term 2010) political candidates who hold that they are anti-bortion EVEN IN THE CASES of RAPE & INCEST, are at least (somehow) intellectually consistent....Does God care if a fetus is the product of rape or abortion?

3) Do the various folks posting comments base their views on the sanctity of life on secular ethics/morality, or on a religion, e.g. Christianity? I'm no expert on the Bble, but, does the Christian God not view ALL of us as "innocents"? Who are we to decide who is "innocent" in the cosmic view? So, do we decide; or does God decide? Is God consistent? Does He differentiate between an innocent fetus & a serial murderer who has truly repented for his sins? Or even not repented for his sins?

Abraham's comments were particularly thought-provoking--I'd never specifically thought of the issue in the converse. In summary, I'm pro-abortion (because I don't belive a fetus is a person) and anti-capital punishment (because a mass murderer, no matter how heinous his crime, IS a person, and I don't believe we humans have the right to take that person's life).

This is a topic that will never have a right answer.I am a "pro-lifer", I am against abortion, the killing of innocent lives that are unable to protect themselves doesn't set well with me; to end a life because it's "convenient" is cruel, in the aspect of women using abortion as a means to correct a mistake is their bad, in the even of incest, rape or harm to the mother I can see the necessity of abortion; but whichever way you split it, it will always have long lasting effects physically, emotionally and mentally that that mother will have to deal with forever; and that in itself is punishment. With that being said, I am also a "Pro-death penalty advocate". As a Christian I am aware of what it says in the bible about murder and I am also aware of what it says about judgment, God did spare Cain after the murder of Abel, but what about Moses? In Exodus 2:12 it says "looking this way and that and seeing no one, he killed the Egyptian and hid the body in the sand", the story goes that this soldier was trying to rape an Egyptian slave, God didn't punish him, he made him one of the most famous religious leaders; I believe that God in the end is the only one that can judge us but I also believe he uses people to do his works. God is merciful but he is also JUST...so do we continue to crowd our prisons with murderers; giving them 3 meals a day, shelter, showers, a chance to be released on "good behavior" to turn around and do it again, or do we make that difficult decision that that person did not value human life enough to spare it so why should we spare theirs?A.G

Another death missing in this discussion is specifically that of suicide (killing oneself). Would a "pro-lifer" say that under no circumstance would he or she commit suicide since perhaps the individual is an "innocent" victim of disease (both physical and psychiatric) and should not deserve death. What about physician "assisted suicide" which is permitted in several US states. Would the "pro-lifer" consider the physician the same as a physician performing an abortion?

I wonder what those who are "pro-life" think about suicide which is a bit different than abortion (loss of attaining a state of life "without direct permission"), execution (legal killing without necessarily consent of the criminal)or the killing in war (death without consent).

So let's specifically dissect suicide as part of this wonderful discussion. ..Maurice.

The content of this blog is Copyrighted 2004-14. Maurice Bernstein, M.D. All Rights Reserved

FAIR USE NOTICE:

If this site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner, it is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of the ethics dealing with medical practice, medical care, science and scientific research, human rights, social justice and, in addition, the law and politics which cover these areas. It is believed that this use constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed to visitors of this “Bioethics Discussion Blog” without profit to the blog or to those who by visiting this blog have expressed interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The material in this site is provided for educational and informational purposes only, and is not intended to be a substitute for a health care provider's consultation. Please consult your own appropriate health care provider about the applicability of any opinions or recommendations with respect to your own symptoms or medical conditions. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.